Hunter wrote on May 29
th, 2008 at 3:02pm:
AnalSphincter
Ex Member
Re: Some Actually Credible Research
Reply #22 - Feb 25th, 2005, 1:36pm Drew Richardson wrote on Feb 25th, 2005, 12:58pm:
A.S.,
Apparently you have missed this one in your various responses. George Maschke writes:
I have known, spoken to, and worked with Norm Ansley in the late 1980's and early 1990's. I found him to be both pleasant to work with and an honorable gentleman. That having been said, George is precisely correct. Norm was a well-known polygraph advocate and hardly a suitable candidate for putting together what would be considered an unbiased, neutral and meaningful compendium. George’s characterization of that compendium is also right on target. It is no surprise that the National Academy of Sciences in its various deliberations and recent report on polygraphy has called for the separation of the funding, conduct, and publication of polygraph research from individuals and the community which profits from the ongoing practice of polygraphy and handled by various serious research centers, i.e., the DOE National Laboratories, NIH, etc. Until such is done, there will be very little credibility associated with said research.
Hello again, Drew. No, I didn't miss anything. I just didn't consider that post important enough to counter. Since you point it out, though, I will say this:
Those studies are as "credible" as anything the "anti" people have available on this site. You are right, though, about the need for additional research. Right now, there is an "anti" side with its less than totally credible studies and a "pro" side with its own less than totally credible studies. At least the "pro" side has experience in using the instrument in question to add a bit more credibility to its argument.
As Gino should know by now, and as you and George should have realized yourselves, for every questionable study you can come up with and claim to be valid, the "pro" people can counter with one of their own. It's like "proving" that God exists: I can point to a myriad of things in Nature that "prove" there is order which must come from God, while you could point out a myriad of things in Nature that "prove" there is disorder and therefore no God. Neither side proves anything.
This website proves only its agenda, which is to discredit a process through easily refutable information.
This post is from the one you hyperlinked George. It says accurately what I believe to be true about your quotes on research. You have no research that is peer reviewed to discredit polygraph, only quips and quotes from your own slanted view of polygraph. When actual research is submitted you dismiss it as "Non Schientific", so where is your peer reviewed reseearch? I have not seen it, please present it.
It's like "proving" that God exists: I can point to a myriad of things in Nature that "prove" there is order which must come from God, while you could point out a myriad of things in Nature that "prove" there is disorder and therefore no God. Neither side proves anything. With this logic the same can apply to Santa Claus you cannot "prove" he exists or doesn't, does not negate the logical option that if you cannot prove something is or, in this case "works for the intened purpose" than it simply cannot be relied upon for that pupose no matter how you package it.
Your industry claims that this machine accuratly detects decpetion a claim incidently that is not evenly agreed on even with in your own community of examiners therefore, it is up to you to prove it does.
In my experience you'd have a better chance at convincing me of the exsistence of Santa Claus.
BTW this site does not ONLY prove its agenda it is open to all sides of the arguments and experiences.
It is always amusing to me how examiners routinly come on an "anti" site that they call nothing but propagada to discredit those of us that have direct experience that Polygraph does not detect decption.
Pages: 
Child pornography lover passes his own polygraph. (Read 23621 times)
